Quantcast

ROMNEY AND RYAN LIE ABOUT MEDICARE!!!!

sjalan 2012/08/17 16:46:03
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Top Six Myths about MedicareReutersBy Mark Miller | Reuters – 21 hours ago

Mitt Romney's selection of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate guarantees a fierce debate about the future of Medicare during the presidential campaign this fall.

Ryan is the author of several plans to slash the cost of Medicare, the U.S. health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. He would do that by transforming it into a voucher program that would provide seniors a fixed annual benefit, so-called premium support. That plan is overwhelmingly unpopular among all Americans, and especially seniors, because it would more than double their current out-of-pocket Medicare costs over the coming decade.

The debate already is generating plenty of claims and counter-claims about what is and is not working - often based on misinformation about how Medicare actually functions today. So let's take a look at the six biggest myths about Medicare, along with the facts.

MYTH ONE: MEDICARE COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL

Facts:
Medicare spending will soar in the years ahead as the number of seniors grows, but its per-capita growth is slower than private health insurance - and it is getting better. "We may be reaching the point now where Medicare healthcare expenses are growing no more quickly than growth of the economy overall," said John Rother, chief executive officer of the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC). "That's important, but it might as well be a state secret as far as the public and Congress goes."

The average annual per-capita spending growth rate through 2019 is projected at 3.1 percent for Medicare, compared with 4.9 percent for private insurance plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The 3.1 percent projection even includes higher payments to doctors as part of a long-term solution to the long-running problem of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) used under current law to control Medicare spending on physician services.

The 3.1 percent projection also is smaller than the 3.7 percent annual growth in gross domestic product for that period projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

Although we hear plenty about fraud and abuse in Medicare - which is a legitimate area of concern - the program is dramatically more efficient than private insurance. Medicare spent just 1.4 percent of every dollar on administrative overhead, even including money spent to fight fraud and abuse, compared with 25 percent overhead in private plans, according to Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in elder law matters.

MYTH TWO: MEDICARE IS GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE

Facts:
The government funds Medicare, but healthcare delivery is entirely private.

The phrase "government healthcare" implies that the Medicare program actually delivers the care - as the National Health Service does in Great Britain, or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does here. Medicare is simply a government-financed health insurance provider.

"The government provides the financing, so it's appropriate to say the government is the health insurance company," Kaplan said. "But all the doctors, pharmacies, and nursing homes are private. The provider sends a bill - instead of Blue Cross Blue Shield, the federal government writes the check. But you go to whatever hospital you want."

MYTH THREE: OBAMACARE SLASHES $700 BLN FROM MEDICARE

Facts:
The Romney-Ryan campaign has trotted out this scary-sounding number to deflect attention from Ryan's voucher plan. But it is largely a false claim because it implies that the health reform law slashes benefits.

The Affordable Care Act actually delivers expanded benefits to seniors. It closes the prescription drug donut hole over time, with 3.6 million seniors saving a collective $2.1 billion last year; it also expands preventive services, including an annual wellness visit, mammograms and prostate cancer screenings with no out-of-pocket cost.

Obamacare does cut $700 billion in Medicare spending over a 10-year period. But the cuts are adjustments in payments to Medicare providers, which are mostly meaningless to patients. According to the CBO, the ACA's 10-year cuts include $415 billion in fee-for-service payments to healthcare providers, $156 billion in reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans, $56 billion to hospitals, and $114 billion in other miscellaneous cuts far too numerous to detail here.

MYTH FOUR: DOCTORS WILL NOT ACCEPT MEDICARE BECAUSE OF ALL THESE CUTS

Facts:
Most Medicare patients do not have trouble finding doctors who will see them, but there is growing concern about access to primary care physicians.

This issue is monitored closely by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent Congressional agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare. The agency's most recent annual survey of Medicare patients found that just 2 percent of beneficiaries had problems of any kind finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare - the same percentage of patients aged 50-64 with private insurance who report problems.

Likewise, just 2.1 percent report trouble of any kind finding specialists willing to accept Medicare, compared with 2.3 percent for patients with private insurance.

MYTH FIVE: THE WEALTHY ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE


Facts: Medicare has been means-tested since 2003, when the Medicare Modernization Act established higher premiums for Part B (outpatient services) for individuals with $85,000 or more in annual income, and joint filers with income over $170,000.

The ACA expanded these income-related premiums to the Part D prescription drug benefit, and to the Part C Medicare Advantage program. Wealthy Americans - of all ages - also will start paying a new 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on unearned income. The tax affects individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

MYTH SIX: RISING LONGEVITY WILL SINK MEDICARE

Facts: It is true that people are living longer, and Medicare's eligibility age is fixed for everyone at 65. But that does not mean Medicare costs are rising as a result. That is because nursing homes, which are the biggest area of expense incurred in advanced age, are not covered under Medicare.

Medicare covers most hospital costs, but a very limited amount of nursing home expenses. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the cumulative cost borne by the Medicare program plateaus at age 80.

"It's logical that longer living means more cumulative healthcare expense," Kaplan said. "But what happens is we need more nursing care, and less hospital care."

@yahoofinance on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook


<img width=1 height=1 alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=VbCsVUPDlDlW5lsyUCtRngCyRr73z...

Read More: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-six-myths-about-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Keeping It Real 2012/08/17 17:44:54
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    Keeping It Real
    +4
    And that's giving them too much credit!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • bob h. 2012/08/30 00:48:22
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    bob h.
    Might as well just give the whole plan to the insurance cos.
  • sjalan bob h. 2012/08/30 02:05:42
    sjalan
    +1
    That is what they want to do and let us people who have paid all our lives into the system keep paying.
  • taitaFalcon23 2012/08/25 16:45:56
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    taitaFalcon23
    That's what the $700 billions in cuts the president is accused of by Romney and Ryan are all about. Of course, they won't tell you that Ryan proposed the same cost cutting measures in his version of the federal budget.
  • sjalan taitaFa... 2012/08/25 17:11:46
    sjalan
    No the did not call them cost cutting measures. Ryan blatantly stated that the money would go to 1. deficit reduction 2. and other expenditures $250 Billion of it to the Military. NONE would be put into Medicare or Medicaid because he wants to turn them into a voucher system and stick it to the retirees a second time.

    Do your research the Ryan Budget is to reward the richest 2% in the nation with huge tax cuts which is where the rest of the $700+ billion is to go.
  • taitaFa... sjalan 2012/08/25 22:52:27
    taitaFalcon23
    I understand your concern but frankly, this is the rhetoric of a candidate ticket - making promises that are not doable. The voucher system is not doable because when people get to the voting booth, they may want to vote the GOP ticket but reality will have a higher demand. Wherever the money is SUPPOSED to go is just theory among a people who've seen social engineering fail to the richest 1% and they're just weary... that is the new reality.

    Claims about the reduction of deficit is BS via reducing medicare cost. If anything, the deficit will be reduced by getting the real estate paradigm fixed and controlling healthcare costs. The US economy actually has trillions being held back by politics and after the elections they'll put it in play, one way or another. Even Exxon won't risk billions to keep Boehner and Mitchell in power to continue destabilizing the economy
  • Lee 2012/08/19 19:03:50
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    Lee
    +1
    What do you expect.

    Liars LIE.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/08/17 21:03:47
    YEP THEY BOTH LIE LIKE RUGS
    Lady Whitewolf
    So what else is new??
  • Starman 2012/08/17 18:37:44
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    Starman
    +3
    R&R; lie about fundamental issues, and then accuse the Obama campaign of lying in order to deflect the truth. I find it very sad that so many are falling for these tactics.
  • The Wrong Guy 2012/08/17 17:53:47
    YEP THEY BOTH LIE LIKE RUGS
    The Wrong Guy
  • Keeping It Real 2012/08/17 17:44:54
    They are both a couple of scuzzbuckets for misleading the public in this manner
    Keeping It Real
    +4
    And that's giving them too much credit!
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/08/17 17:27:28 (edited)
    I think ---
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    Excellent post!

    False implication, like this, is a powerful propaganda tool in the Conservative Disinformation Network (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.ne... ):

    [QUOTE]
    MYTH THREE: OBAMACARE SLASHES $700 BLN FROM MEDICARE

    Facts: The Romney-Ryan campaign has trotted out this scary-sounding number to deflect attention from Ryan's voucher plan. But it is largely a false claim because it implies that the health reform law slashes benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act actually delivers expanded benefits to seniors. It closes the prescription drug donut hole over time, with 3.6 million seniors saving a collective $2.1 billion last year; it also expands preventive services, including an annual wellness visit, mammograms and prostate cancer screenings with no out-of-pocket cost.

    Obamacare does cut $700 billion in Medicare spending over a 10-year period. But the cuts are adjustments in payments to Medicare providers, which are mostly meaningless to patients. According to the CBO, the ACA's 10-year cuts include $415 billion in fee-for-service payments to healthcare providers, $156 billion in reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans, $56 billion to hospitals, and $114 billion in other miscellaneous cuts far too numerous to detail here.
    [END QUOTE]

    It may be interesting to co...















































    Excellent post!

    False implication, like this, is a powerful propaganda tool in the Conservative Disinformation Network (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.ne... ):

    [QUOTE]
    MYTH THREE: OBAMACARE SLASHES $700 BLN FROM MEDICARE

    Facts: The Romney-Ryan campaign has trotted out this scary-sounding number to deflect attention from Ryan's voucher plan. But it is largely a false claim because it implies that the health reform law slashes benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act actually delivers expanded benefits to seniors. It closes the prescription drug donut hole over time, with 3.6 million seniors saving a collective $2.1 billion last year; it also expands preventive services, including an annual wellness visit, mammograms and prostate cancer screenings with no out-of-pocket cost.

    Obamacare does cut $700 billion in Medicare spending over a 10-year period. But the cuts are adjustments in payments to Medicare providers, which are mostly meaningless to patients. According to the CBO, the ACA's 10-year cuts include $415 billion in fee-for-service payments to healthcare providers, $156 billion in reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans, $56 billion to hospitals, and $114 billion in other miscellaneous cuts far too numerous to detail here.
    [END QUOTE]

    It may be interesting to compare and contrast your analysis with this one:

    [QUOTE]
    Feeling ill over the Medicare debates

    The Republican National Committee chairman says President Obama has “blood on [his] hands” for cutting Medicare. Mitt Romney blasts the president for having “robbed” the program of $700 billion.

    Vice President Biden accuses Romney and running mate Paul Ryan of “gutting” Medicare. And, inevitably, President Obama warned that Romney-Ryan would “end Medicare as we know it.”

    Aren’t you glad we’re having a sober policy discussion about how to rein in entitlement spending?

    Such hyperbole was inevitable. The laws of political gravity drag every debate from the lofty realm of ideas to the grungy plain of invective. The more complex and weighty the issue, the more it is at risk of being distilled — distorted — into a 30-second caricature.

    Let’s pause for a bit of fact-checking.

    The cheeky response to the critique of Obama’s Medicare cuts is that Ryan assumes those very cuts in his budget — the one passed by the House and endorsed as “marvelous” by Romney. So there are robbers galore and blood to spread around.

    The slightly less cheeky response is to say: Aren’t these the people who have been screaming about Medicare bankrupting the country? Shouldn’t they be praising cuts, not denouncing them?

    The on-the-merits response is that the cuts — more accurately, reductions in the rate of growth — involve lower reimbursements to hospitals and nursing homes, reduced payments to insurers, higher premiums for better-off beneficiaries, and savings from reforms such as lower hospital readmissions.

    In other words, Grandma might lose her free eyeglasses, but her basic benefits remain untouched.

    The fairer question is whether the savings should have been used to reduce the debt rather than underwrite low-income subsidies in Obamacare. But since Romney-Ryan would do nothing — nada! — to slow the growth of Medicare for a decade, they are not the ones to ask it.

    Not that Democrats are more honest. The attack on Romney-Ryan for “ending Medicare as we know it” studiously ignores the unpleasant reality that Medicare as we know it cannot continue. Meanwhile, an Obama campaign video of Floridians bemoaning the GOP team’s Medicare plan (“It’s my No. 1 priority now that I’m going on 65,” one woman says) somehow omits the salient fact that current beneficiaries and those near retirement would be unaffected.

    The Romney-Ryan approach would transform Medicare by giving seniors a voucher to shop around for coverage on insurance exchanges. Insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge more to sicker seniors. Those with lower incomes would receive extra help to pay for premiums.

    Sound familiar? Yes, like Obamacare — except Romney-Ryan has the public option that liberals were clamoring for back when. Seniors could decide to use their voucher to keep traditional fee-for-service coverage.

    The addition of the traditional Medicare option was one key change Ryan made when he teamed up last year with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.).

    The second was to let vouchers grow more quickly over time. Under Ryan’s original plan, the benefit would have increased only with the rate of inflation. Health-care costs rise far faster, which is, of course, precisely the problem.

    So the value of the voucher would be quickly eroded, and seniors would have to dig into their pockets to afford coverage. The Congressional Budget Office projected that a typical 65-year-old would have to pay an additional $6,500 a year.

    The Wyden-Ryan proposal would allow the voucher to grow at a more generous rate — inflation plus economic growth plus 1 percent. (Romney dodges the issue.) That is the target set under Obamacare for the new cost-control oversight board.

    There are legitimate and important questions about this approach, beginning with the fundamental theory: that competition among insurance companies and more price-consciousness among beneficiaries will reduce costs. Will this work?

    Will traditional Medicare remain a viable option, or will private insurers lure the healthiest seniors, driving sicker beneficiaries into Medicare and producing a death spiral of rising premiums?

    Fair questions, but here’s another fair one, to Democrats and the president: What’s your plan? They haven’t offered one.

    The current debate, with overblown, dueling accusations, helps explain why: Details on a topic this emotional can be hazardous to your political health.

    So as much as I welcome a vapid campaign’s nascent shift to substance, I worry about the aftereffects. The Ryan pick could move an essential discussion forward. But I worry, as I think responsible politicians in both parties should, that it could serve instead to reaffirm the danger of the third rail.
    [END QUOTE http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
    (more)
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 17:41:09
    Schläue~©
    +1
    If Ryan's plan were to be put in legislative form, passed and signed into law tomorrow,.... how does it affect ANY senior who is currently enrolled in Medicare or anyone 55 or older who will enter the conventional, existing plan when they retire?
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 17:54:36
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    As I understand it, the Ryan plan will grandfather this group. It is younger retirees who will be shortchanged.
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 18:00:57 (edited)
    Schläue~©
    +1
    And by 'grandfathered', that would mean -- receive the same benefits they currently have without interruption.

    "younger retirees" (those currently 55) will have the option to continue having all of their withholding's put towards conventional Medicare or to divert part or all of those same funds,.
    Once again, it will be a choice,.... nobody being forced into anything.

    How is having choices and options being 'shortchanged'?
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 18:18:39
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    If the voucher would provide the same level of coverage as the current plan, then they would not be shortchanged. But that does not seem to be the case:

    [QUOTE]
    Under Ryan’s original plan, the benefit would have increased only with the rate of inflation. Health-care costs rise far faster, which is, of course, precisely the problem.

    So the value of the voucher would be quickly eroded, and seniors would have to dig into their pockets to afford coverage. The Congressional Budget Office projected that a typical 65-year-old would have to pay an additional $6,500 a year.
    [END QUOTE http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 18:29:13
    Schläue~©
    +2
    All of that is speculation at this point because the final draft of the plan hasn't even been written as of yet.

    Besides any CBO cost analysis has been calculated under the assumption that 0bamacare still exists. That's the only way they could possibly do the math right now. The CBO only scores what is placed in front of them and nothing more.

    Everything changes when it is repealed and replaced with a true health-care reform plan that addresses what needed to be fixed and actually accomplishes those goals.
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 18:38:05
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    True dat!
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 21:29:43
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    Another perspective, reinforcing my understanding that that vouchers would curtail the Medicare benefit:

    [QUOTE]
    Enter Paul Ryan. As a congressman, the Wisconsin representative’s signature accomplishment is a proposal to reform entitlements, particularly Medicare. In its original incarnation, Ryan’s Medicare reforms would replace guaranteed health care with a vouchers, which seniors could use to purchase health insurance on a private market. Because Ryan designs his vouchers to fall behind rising medical costs, most seniors would find themselves forced to pay more out of pocket.

    More recently, after criticism from all sides, he released a less conservative variation of his original proposal. The structure hasn’t changed, but traditional Medicare is preserved as an option. The problem is that new beneficiaries would be automatically enrolled in the new program, leaving traditional Medicare to collapse under the burden of fewer participants and higher costs.

    There’s little popular support for transforming Medicare into a series of vouchers. In a survey last year, the Washington Post and ABC News found massive opposition to Ryan’s original proposal—65 percent opposed a plan to provide vouchers, which grew to 85 percent when respondents were told that the vouchers wouldn’t ...


    Another perspective, reinforcing my understanding that that vouchers would curtail the Medicare benefit:

    [QUOTE]
    Enter Paul Ryan. As a congressman, the Wisconsin representative’s signature accomplishment is a proposal to reform entitlements, particularly Medicare. In its original incarnation, Ryan’s Medicare reforms would replace guaranteed health care with a vouchers, which seniors could use to purchase health insurance on a private market. Because Ryan designs his vouchers to fall behind rising medical costs, most seniors would find themselves forced to pay more out of pocket.

    More recently, after criticism from all sides, he released a less conservative variation of his original proposal. The structure hasn’t changed, but traditional Medicare is preserved as an option. The problem is that new beneficiaries would be automatically enrolled in the new program, leaving traditional Medicare to collapse under the burden of fewer participants and higher costs.

    There’s little popular support for transforming Medicare into a series of vouchers. In a survey last year, the Washington Post and ABC News found massive opposition to Ryan’s original proposal—65 percent opposed a plan to provide vouchers, which grew to 85 percent when respondents were told that the vouchers wouldn’t pay for full medical care. According to CNN last June, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose the plan, and 56 percent say it would be bad for the elderly. Among seniors themselves, 74 percent oppose it.
    [END QUOTE http://prospect.org/article/c... ]

    To retain full coverage, the only option seems to be increasing premiums.
    (more)
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 21:58:55
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Three counties in TX. (Galveston being one) tried the same thing with Social Security years ago and those opting for a private retirement account are receiving 2-3 times the $1,100 benefit they would have trough traditional SS.

    It can, and does work. People are reluctant to hearing any kind of changes to something that's been around for 50-80 years that they have a personal investment in but the more they understand the TRUTH about the options, the more they are liking it.

    Fact is, neither program are sustainable and claiming to save them by cutting out over-billing doesn't cut it.
    The Band-Aids for Hemorrhages Act.
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 22:48:04
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Medicare, and all other insurance programs, ARE sustainable when premiums cover expenses.
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 23:00:53
    Schläue~©
    So is the policy on my 930 Turbo if I hit the lottery every other week.
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 23:08:16
    Kaleokualoha
    The only options seem to be decreasing coverage or increasing premiums. Methinks most people will not condone decreasing coverage because we are already paying for a certain level of coverage. This leaves only one reasonable alternative.
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 23:15:29
    Schläue~©
    +1
    One thing that will help immensely is reducing the ridiculous amounts of malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals have to carry. All of that gets dumped back on every consumer in every way imaginable.
    People complain that too many unnecessary tests are ordered but what recourse do medical professionals have when Glenn Lerner is parked outside their door wearing his sneakers?
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 23:25:56
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Indeed! Defensive medicine, along with administrative costs, are monstrous drains on the healthcare system.

    BTW: I thought Glenn Lerner was a local ambulance chaser. Is he notorious internationally?
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 23:36:12
    Schläue~©
    Nope,... I have a house off of W. Lake Mead Bl. and the 215.

    That commercial was pretty damn funny though.
    Glenn has no shame in his game and isn't afraid to make fun of himself on the way to the bank.
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/17 23:39:37 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    Ah! That explains it! Your avatar indicates "Germany," as also suggested by your name. USAF?
  • Schläue~© Kaleoku... 2012/08/17 23:52:04
    Schläue~©
    USMC, I just happened to open this account while I was over there and never changed the location.
  • Kaleoku... Schläue~© 2012/08/18 00:15:34 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Thank you for your service. Semper Fi!
  • taitaFa... Schläue~© 2012/08/25 17:00:10
    taitaFalcon23
    Bear in mind, this is a long range scenario. Since medicare does not fund healthcare, people have the natural tendency to hold off as long as possible to take on that monthly expense. When in fact, what should happen is to acquire insurance sooner rather than later before injury or illness begins a track record and affect your premiums that are coming sooner or later. Healthcare is like taxes and death - it has 100% rate of necessity in everyone's life.

    The national statistics are that 75% or all people over 65 will require some form of healthcare insurance to include Long-Term-Care care that avg's $192K per yr. Existing healthcare insurance from a job does not pay for LTC nor short-term.

    Annuity protection is an insurance product, true - that is not protected by medicare nor worker supplied insurance. So the money that should be paying for retirement, is now having to be allocated to a facility and/or skilled nursing care. The money that was saved up to pass on to the kids, is now being eaten up quickly by everyone but them
  • Schläue~© taitaFa... 2012/08/25 17:48:28 (edited)
    Schläue~©
    OK,... and from what I understand (keeping in mind the final plan isn't on paper) one would have to choose and either - or option (perhaps a combo) and not simply blow off any type of retirement plan altogether.
    The baby boomers have already hit and the wave of new enrollments will continue for the next couple of years. Giving them them the benefit of the doubt still sees most of that wave off to greener pastures by 2026 when the system left untouched, implodes.

    Currently, Medicare is an $83 Trillion liability and that number will be astronomical in 2026. 0bamacare doesn't come close to addressing any of that and in fact is designed to collapse within the first year of full implementation. It wasn't crafted to fix anything about the existing health-care woes, rather accelerate them and crash the economy on purpose giving the excuse needed to install an emergency universal, complete govt. take-over that was desired from the get-go.

    Fortunately, none of that will happen as the replacement plan will no doubt be readied in legislative form before Romney is sworn in, just as HR 1 ($787B stimulus) HR 3200 (0bamacare-1) & HR 2454 (Cap & Trade) were in 2009.
  • taitaFa... Schläue~© 2012/08/25 23:09:59
    taitaFalcon23
    the fact is that both SS and medicare are solvent until you take the Bush era tax cuts from the general fund - that is what's affecting sustainability most. The theory is sound with proof. It has lasted since 1936, in '65 the theory was only slightly impacted with LBJ getting medicare approved. Then in 2006, the system was again abd modified to accomodate changes to pharmaceuticals.

    Since then, we've been dealing with politics affecting the most successful program besides the Defense Dept in the history of the US. The issues did not come about over the past 70 yrs... they are foolish f*cking around with something that worked well during that time due to purely politics.

    You need to understand that most people have the mistaken image that healthcare is paid thru the SS system.. It is not. SS pays for immediate medical expenses thru taxes from earned income. All healthcare is PRIVATIZED. There are 4 parts; A via payroll tax, B via individual payroll tax; Part C a combination of A, B, and D. Part D is the presription drug plan paid by the receipient via private premium or payroll accumulated taxes
  • Schläue~© taitaFa... 2012/08/25 23:24:51
    Schläue~©
    We currently have an $83 TRILLION liability and you're seriously blaming that on the $800 Billion Clinton tax repeal?

    LBJ should have been shot for enacting Medicare in the first place. It was a Ponzi scheme from the get-go and now we're stuck with finding another solution.

    Imagine if seniors had been putting the same amount into private retirement accounts all along (not publicly traded stock options) and received a modest 2% interest accumulating for 45+ years?
  • taitaFa... Schläue~© 2012/08/26 00:16:40
    taitaFalcon23
    SS and Medicare is NOT in a $83 trillion hole. They're both currently solvent. LBJ solved a problem in '65 that is still being resolved today. I was into politics as a kid then ,and I remember life for my parents and grandparents then before medicare and the same noise you hear now, was the same noise you hear from the GOP today. Except you didn't hear freshmen congressmen and senators holding their hands out asking where is their taxpayer supplied healthcare, they had more class than be so hypocritical.

    YOU imagine a world where stocks are indexed instead of the Vegas roulette which they've only been able to do for the past 10 yrs or less... the old way of saving or stocks investing is deader than dead. Because it asks people to take their life savings and wait until they're past the earning yrs and put into Vegas style play with a 75% chance or greater of loss of the principle.

    The other choice is to invest in real estate and you see where that's gotten. I sell life insurance products for a living and annuities are an insurance product (Inidividual Retirement Accounts). The idea of accumulating cash values are so 1990's mentality. You're going to have to keep up if you have a family to take care of. The question at that point, is to nail down your tax liability - either take it off the table or defer it.
  • sjalan taitaFa... 2012/08/26 00:45:51
    sjalan
    Excuse us all. Had the SS system and Medicare system been kept as totally independent secured funds with each taxpayer having their individual accounts as it was originally set up, the SS trust fund would have more than $58 TRILLION in assets. The Medicare Trust Fund would have slightly more than $22 Trillion in assets.

    The current balance in the Trust Funds of each are yearly hand to mouth with about a 36 month reserve.
  • taitaFa... sjalan 2012/08/26 01:13:28
    taitaFalcon23
    but that is far from being $83 trilliion in the hole. Since congress has the power to allocate the money to where, when and how much, they're responsible for the current state of SS and medicare. They're banking on the misery index for pushing people to panic and blame everbody except where the blame belongs. It is useless to entertain what mighta, coulda, or maybe be. The facts are now.... What has been historically accurate is no matter what you tell people, there is a 10% that doesn't get it and then want the goverment to bail them out.
  • sjalan taitaFa... 2012/08/26 01:26:51
    sjalan
    To an accountant that would be in charge of a perpetual Trust Fund, indeed that WOULD be in the hole. Trust funds are supposed to be FULLY FUNDED, if not SUPER FUNDED. Being Super Funded is the $83 Trillion dollar figure, which if not a penny more were collected then last penny in by the last contributor, the fund would be able to pay the full benefit to which the person was entitled. There are presently only two such super funded retirement trust funds. CALPERS and the California Teachers Retirement Fund managed by CALPERS>
  • taitaFa... sjalan 2012/08/26 04:35:45
    taitaFalcon23
    and the two have virtually bankrupted CA - these complex schemes have their place and except in reality. People need sometime alittle more concrete than that with their life savings that requires a high probability of principle retention
  • sjalan taitaFa... 2012/08/26 04:42:44
    sjalan
    BS!!!

    Both of them are funded our of the salaries of the employees. The STATE does not fund these, the employee + their employing group funds them.

    The trouble that the state has is that the typical politicians have been short funding their part of the equations.
  • Schläue~© 2012/08/17 17:12:16
    I think ---
    Schläue~©
    +1
    The Romney/Ryan plan doesn't exist in legislative form but the outline doesn't affect any seniors who are currently on the plan or those 55 and older who will be entering their Medicare years around 2024. I
    nstead, it gives those 55 and under, some choices about their future to ensure they get something back from all the money they've paid in, all their working lives.

    0bozo's plan would destroy the choices, options, quality, availability and sustainability immediately though cuts in services and increased direct costs passed onto seniors after $716 Billion is removed from the current payment structure for private providers, doctors & hospitals.

    Somebody has to pay for the decreases and with that $716 Billion going to pay for added Medicaid costs and finance 1/3 of 0bozoTax, seniors will be the ones picking up the tab.
  • sjalan Schläue~© 2012/08/17 17:25:25
    sjalan
    +1
    Your contention that it does not affect anyone over 55 is false. The analysis showed very bluntly that the voucher program would cause Current Seniors Enrolled to pay an additional $4-6000 PER YEAR in medical costs.

    I suggest further that you READ (if you know how) the article. It contradicts everything else you have said.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/31 21:47:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals